16 October 2011 8:58 AM

A nudge and a wink... what the Left are really saying about Liam Fox

Hypocrisy isn’t what it used to be. Once, Christian preachers would thunder about the virtues of marriage and then be discovered canoodling with women who weren’t their wives. Everyone would laugh.

Now, pious politically correct persons seek, by innuendo and hint, nudge and wink, to damage a Cabinet Minister by suggesting that he is a secret homosexual. And nobody laughs at the slimy dishonesty of it all.

Everyone pretends to be very concerned about the ‘Ministerial Code’, and about various boring meetings in hotels which may or may not have been attended by some youth.

They even discover, with feigned horror, that the Ministry of Defence is sometimes approached by people who want to make money by selling weapons. Gosh.

But none of this serious, detailed stuff is the real point of what’s really being said. Everyone knows it. Nobody admits it.

Here’s what is really happening. The modish Left know deep down that the public don’t agree with them about homosexuality. In private, they themselves may not even believe the noble public statements they so often make.

And so, without ever openly admitting what they are up to, they destroyed a Minister they disliked for allegedly doing something they officially approve of.

I am no friend of Liam Fox. I know nothing about his private life and care less. But I think it is a very dirty business that Left-wing newspapers, which claim to believe that homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality, behave in this way.

It’s particularly striking that this came almost immediately after the Prime Minister deliberately teased what is left of the Tory Party by saying he favoured homosexual marriage.

I suspect that Mr Cameron was trying to goad the enfeebled Right wing of his party. If they had reacted, he would have crushed them to show who’s boss.

The Left – and Mr Cameron is of the Left – have done this for many years. Moral conservatives have foolishly lumbered into the trap by objecting. And so they have allowed themselves to be smeared as the cruel persecutors of a gentle minority.

But the events of the past week show clearly that the Left, for all their noisy sanctity on the subject, are far from free of prejudice against homosexuals, and quite ready to use such bigotry when it suits them to do so.

Protecting the wrong flock

How typical of the furry Archbishop of Canterbury that he can stand up against the persecution of Christianity in Africa, but isn’t aware of it here.

We shall see in time if he did any good by sharing tea and scones with the sinister Robert Mugabe.I doubt it.

But his behaviour is typical of a church which has been so obsessed with the Third World for so long that it has forgotten the country of its birth, where legions of bureaucrats – often aided by soppy vicars – are quietly strangling the Christian faith.

My guess is that there will be a thriving Anglican church in Africa several centuries after Canterbury Cathedral has been converted into a mosque, and St Paul’s into a museum.

*********************************************************************

A worrying film of a worrying book, We Need To Talk About Kevin, is about to open in this country.

It concerns the culprit of a school massacre, and – though the fictional killer is on SSRI ‘antidepressant’ medication, as almost all such killers are – neither book nor film grasps the significance of this. They minimise it. What a pity.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the alleged culprit of the latest rampage killing, Scott Dekraai of Seal Beach, California, is said to have been suffering from ‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’, which in the USA is often ‘treated’ with SSRI pills. He is also said by his ex-wife to be ‘a diagnosed bipolar individual who has problems with his own medication and his reaction to same’.

Eight more people are dead, quite possibly at the hands of someone who had been taking ‘antidepressants’. Isn’t it time the authorities looked into this connection?

********************************************************************* Rock superstars such as ‘Sir’ Paul McCartney are the new aristocracy.

Normal human beings bow and simper in their presence, their path is cleared through life, and their dull, unoriginal thoughts are treated with respect.

They also exude a tremendous smugness, these vegetarian, animal-loving, charity-supporting types who cram their unfortunate children into state schools to prove that a billion pounds hasn’t turned them into conservatives.

But when it comes to basic neighbourly behaviour, they are as yobbish as the over-rated music that made them rich and famous. Council officials had to be called to the McCartney wedding party in London in the small hours of last Monday to get him to turn down the racket.

If he’s so nice, why didn’t it cross his mind that others have jobs to go to and might need to sleep?

********************************************************************

In a prison in ‘liberated’ Libya, Amnesty International inspectors report having seen instruments of torture and having heard ‘whipping and screams’ from a cell.

There is also clear evidence of racial bigotry in the savage treatment of non-Arab Africans. So, if we intervened there to ‘protect civilians’, why aren’t we intervening now?

*****************

Street demonstrations are usually a waste of time at best. But they can also be dangerous or harmful. And I must appeal to any readers I have in Boston in Lincolnshire to stay away from a march against immigration planned to take place there next month. I also appeal to the organisers of the march to call it off. And I’m hoping for sleet, and a strong east wind off the Wash, on that day. Let me explain.

Some weeks ago I described the damage that stupid Government policies have done to Boston, which now has a huge migrant population mainly from Eastern Europe.

I did not blame the migrants, whose enterprise I admire, or those who employed them. I hoped to illustrate the wrongness of our open borders, and of the EU membership that forces us to keep them open. I also wanted to assail the terrible schools, the dim welfare policies and the family breakdown that have left so many British-born young people unemployable.

Some concrete-headed councillor in Boston chose to attack what I had written, and cast doubt on its truth, reasonably angering many Bostonians who knew that what I had said was correct.

But a demonstration in such a place can do no good, and may well cause tension and bring undesirable political chancers to the town. Already, an outfit called ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (what ‘fascism’, by the way?) is planning a counter- demonstration on the same day. Just imagine the stupidities that could lead to.

If there is trouble, it will only damage the cause of those who want common sense to prevail in this country again. Call it off.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I think the two of you see no harm in any sexual behaviour, providing it does not involve your next of kins; Beatpoet is against incest breeding and sex, while is happy with gay love and other form of sex that can be more dangerous than incest. My views on sexual conduct are not that far from reality and fact, so we will leave it at that. With regard to Mr Wooderson on why do I not give comments on factual evidence; well Joshua there are certain things that are not allowed to be said, even though they are 90% factual. Hence the reason I cannot give you quite a lot of info that I have about certain issues that are banned to be published under our democratic society. I hope you can understand what I have said about fact and fiction.

Secondly - to suggest that the professional destruction of an individual working for a Housing Association resulting from privately voiced beliefs as to the definition of traditional marriage was a consequence of the "occasional zealotry of people who support gay rights" is absurd.

Something has become ruthless, paranoid and, most significantly, powerful and clearly mainstream on behalf of fanatics operating on behalf of gay rights lobbyists.

Lastly - I went to a boarding school and knew that some people were homosexual. I presently help a charity which provides an annual summer camp for physically disabled children - one of the individuals who has also been helping this charity for nearly as long as I have (twenty two years - since 1989) is openly gay. I have not thought, and do not think, any the less of any of them for being what they are.

Probably because there was, nor is, any obligation imposed upon me by them or anyone else to do so. Additionally, the explicit nature of what their homosexuality involves (beyond what is on their sleeve) remains private to them - I am neither asked to embrace it formally (as with acknowledgement of a marriage) or in any other way. Everything remains low key, largely personal to them and irrelevant to why we know each other.

People like yourself assume (or want everyone to believe), Mr Wooderson, that anyone who does not fully support early 21st century gay rights activism is, by definition, a wild-eyed 'homophobe' who is unwilling to embrace anything that has happened over the past century.

You are absolutely wrong. Your own bigotry and intolerance as to what other people instinctively are is actually revealed - and I find that quite sad.

@ A.G. Rawlings - just a quick word, because I'm going on holiday later and I'm running out of time. You are correct - fact has now been overtaken by fiction. It's good that you now recognise your words as fiction. "No harm in sex with the same species" - certainly not and a good thing too, or none of us would be here! I think you are confusing species with gender. As I've said gay people are the same species as heterosexual people - not that this should need pointing out. Your equality/incest point is just bogus - at no point have I said incest is acceptable, quite the contrary. Re your cross-breeding point - you're just not looking hard enough. And you've slyly tried to move the goalposts from domesticated animals to animals "not under human reserves." In any case, you are wrong.

'I’m unable to explain some things on this subject, because fact is now over taken by fiction and must not be spoken on open spaces.'

Do you mean your opinions are being suppressed? That you're the victim of censorship by the liberal elite? Please, do reveal these facts. The truth must be told. I can promise you that no-one's going to come crashing through your window and drag you away into an unmarked van.

Morally, I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with two brothers sleeping together. Whether the law should allow it, though, again I'm not sure. But you've given no reason to think that two men (unrelated) sleeping together is any more analogous to homosexual incest than a woman and a man sleeping together is to heterosexual incest.

The onus is on you to show why you disapprove of gay relationships. Otherwise, I think, equality is a given.

Beatpoet & Wooderson, I’m unable to explain some things on this subject, because fact is now over taken by fiction and must not be spoken on open spaces. You both seem to think that there is no harm in sex with the same species’, hence the reason for same sex marriages being fully supported by our law. You both believe in equality for all; so does that mean that incest within families should be supported by our law? If a brother sleeps with his brother under the same sex law; then what are they doing wrong, under equality for all? I’m unaware of any cross breeding of any animal that is in the wild and not under human reserves; I have never seen any photos of any cross breeding animal species on wild life TV programs or in books of nature.

Peter Charnley writes: 'Mr Wooderson acknowledges that something about the sexual act - not normally taking place between unrelated males and females - can be 'instinctively'' repellent to people.

Yet under the various dictats of the gay rights movement - backed by the modern Left and political correctness - this does not apply to homosexuality.'

No-one denies that some people might find homosexuality instinctively repellent. I expect that the gay rights movement simply regards these people as bigots, and they are. For the most part, homophobes, which I think is a fairly apt term for people who find homosexuality repellent, are not like arachnophobes, or claustrophobes. They openly embrace their feelings towards the gay lifestyle, which is what makes them objectionable.

I'm appalled by the sort of case that you mention, if that is indeed the whole story. But to infer from the occasional zealotry of people who support gay rights that gay rights are tainted as a cause is nonsense, and I'm sure Mr. Charnley can see that it's nonsense. If you want a technical explanation of why it's nonsense, it's a form of the association fallacy. But really it's not a fallacy at all, it's just a desperate attempt to cling to an outdated prejudice.

One final point: I'd be very surprised to discover that Mr. Charnley, Mr. Rawlings, or anyone on this blog speaking so vociferously against gay rights was friends with someone who's gay. Perhaps they should try it, and see whether their view changes.

Joshua Wooderson writes:-
"The reason why people are repulsed by incest is (apart from the instinctive 'yuck' factor)...........etc."

Mr Wooderson acknowledges that something about the sexual act - not normally taking place between unrelated males and females - can be 'instinctively'' repellent to people.

Yet under the various dictats of the gay rights movement - backed by the modern Left and political correctness - this does not apply to homosexuality.

Gigantic holes are emerging in reasoning and in perceptions of what truly constitutes 'tolerance' and 'open mindedness' .

I see in the press that someone else has recently had their career destroyed for privately suggesting, away from their actual place of work, that they believed that marriage should remain as a formal union between men and women. They said nothing hateful or 'homophobic'. They were merely supporting the traditional definition of marriage. Yet they have been persecuted for it.

That doesn't happen when reasonable causes are fighting senseless bigotry. That happens when unreasonable causes are challenging something that cannot be ultimately changed about the inner human being.

@ A.G. Rawlings - you ask, "Beatpoet, any answer to the rest of the comment you have answered?"

I'm not entirely sure what other point or points you have made. You seem to be making some kind of an analogy between incest and homosexuality. Of course, I would never defend incest, I think it's quite wrong and rightly illegal. It is, obviously, perfectly natural to love close family members, such as your mother and father, but this is an entirely different kind of love than that between gay couples. Their love also has a sexual basis, in the same way that a heterosexual couple's does. I said previously that a gay couple's relationship has an emotional, as well as a sexual basis. As does that of a heterosexual couple. Whatever it is that makes some people attracted to those of the same sex, I really don't know - as I said, there is a good argument that it has to do with genes, but that is not the only argument. In any case, what does it really matter? Some people are gay. End of story.

I think it's quite wrong to compare homosexuality with incest, which you appear to have done - if I've misunderstood, please correct me.

The reason why people are repulsed by incest is (apart from the instinctive 'yuck' factor) the possibility for abusive power structures within the relationships (father-daughter, for instance) and the increased risk of genetic abnormalities should a woman get pregnant by one of her relatives. Homosexuality raises neither of these issues, and the comparison of the two is probably offensive to a lot of people, though I see it as just pretty daft.

Your obsession with whether animals have homosexual sex in the wild is irrelevant as well. Animals kill and rape one another in the wild, but we don't see that as a good guide to our conduct. So why does it matter? Still, as beatpoet points out, homosexual sex does happen in the wild among numerous species, so the 'not natural' argument, fallacious though it is anyway, is based on a false premise.

Alan Thomas, I,m afraid that in your strenuous efforts to find some way of twisting my words, you have actually rendered yourself incoherent and rambling.

I am supportive of Griffin, Brons and Irving's right to spead without being censored, and as you know, I am also sympathetic to some of their views. I use them as examples because they represent the only tendency of opinion in this society which is censored, as you also already know.

I do revel in accurate descriptions of what I and indeed the rest of the nation have observed - the braying mob accompanied Griffin when he spoke on Question Time and Griffin and Irving when they spoke at the Oxford Union, and practically anytime when the BNP gather and UAF gets wind of it. Pray tell, in what way is this different from the treatment meted out to dissidents in East Germany? Having the pretence of free speech is not the same as actually having it.

In a truly fair society, no politically correct body or organization like UAF would recieve any funding from the state and they should be arrested if they try to disrupt citizens exercising their democratic rights.

Hello Derek.
I took your advice ,thought about the floods in Thailand. A terrible business indeed. I also thought, did Thailanders think about the flood in Bocastle.
You seem like a nice chap. Why don't you think about it some more .
Thailanders seem to me eminently qualified to help themselves. An industrious folk not prone to moan ,unlike you .
Now if you'll excuse me I'll go check my lotto results.

@ A.G. Rawlings - your last sentence has two separate points. Do animals in the wild crossbreed? And do animals in the wild engage in homosexual activity? In relation to the first point, as I said to you the first time, Google "hybrid animals" and you'll see what I mean. If you could also re-read my quote from National Geographic, that might help, too. Re the second point about homosexual animals, I recall reading about a safari holiday for gay people who go to Kenya, I think it is, to see wild animals, such as giraffes, engaging in homosexual behaviour in the wild. Also, if you Google "gay animals", you'll again see what I mean.

Do I owe you an apology? Reading your comment again it could be taken that, whilst not agreeing with the said three, you are quite happy for them to have a platform. That is also my position, if for no other reason that the more they utter, the more their position is revealed.
As an aside, is your view of the 'state-funded braying mob' (East German version) based on personal observation or reports in the Politically Correct 'Liberal' elite media?
Sorry about the jargon, but I know you revel in it.

Beatpoet, I will do my best to answer your questions about homosexuality and its use by some people who love their same sex people sexually and emotionally. My reply was to Mr Wooderson and yourself with your comments on same sex as being nature that was on the verge of being handed down by genes. Love is part of nature, if one loves their mother, father, sister, brother and many more family and friends. If one interbreeds or has sex with all those members of the family above, we are told that it is a vile act that is not nature and is indefensible. So if I take your comment that there is more too homosexuality than sex, you are pulling love and caring apart, by saying if we interbreed or have sex within, it is OK? I know of no wild animal species that are living in the wild and not controlled by humans to crossbreed or be animal homosexual.

That is why I clearly said I understand your stance on free speech. What I'm really trying to understand is why you use the names mentioned to strengthen your argument. Unlike mikebarnes, who is fulsome in his praise of Griffin and Brons(? - the latter appears to have fallen out with the former, it seems), I can only assume your post was meant to be in some way supportive. Please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.

I can well understand your stout role as a defender of free speech, but many might feel that appearing to also be a possible apologist for the somewhat tarnished Dr Fox, alongside Giffin, Brons and Irving is, in today's terms, something of a stretch.

The whole basis of free speech is precisely to defend the right of people with whom you disagree to be heard, a foreign concept it seems to the Politically Correct 'Liberal' elite, who seem to have a similar mentality to early puritans - namely that those who disagree with them are a moral evil which should be harrassed by a state-funded braying mob. (East German tactics also).

Free speech does not mean only allowing yes-men to have a platform, or those who hold the 'acceptable' views.

@Peter Charnley
"A woman who undoubtedly would not have thought twice about the matter if she had suspected heterosexuals."
-So there might have been a second there where she pondered maybe not reporting the child abuse for fear of being judged as being judgemental. Wow.

"It is about the ultimately self-defeating paranoia that will always be the consequence of eternally futile battles waged against truth and the hard-wired instincts and feelings of the majority of real people."
-Only yesterday, on this very website, was a report of some research that claimed that 60% of women found some other women sexually attractive. Now I am usually not one to give any credence to research reported in the DM, but it at least sounds more like the world that I know. I am pleased that the tides of acceptance are turning and people feel more free to be themselves, even more so than mr Charnley seems to believe. But I do find it astonishing though when people express anti-gay sentiments, claim that most people hold the same views (which, although being a gross exaggeration, does at least acknowledge the fact that there is still some way to go) and then argue that because of this there is no need to further gay rights. It doesn't make sense.

"What I have been saying in previous comments, 'Andrew', has been for the benefit (as I see it) of everyone including homosexuals."
-I am sure that they will all be very grateful.

"That is why so many homosexuals themselves dislike them"
-I have difficulty believing this because to know that, one could suspect that you might need to know a few homosexuals, and if you did, you would have probably realised that they are human beings, just like you.
I agree that debating an issue such as this when people have such firmly held beliefs is rather futile. So I would just like to leave with this parting suggestion for the homophobes out there: try, just for a moment, to imagine that you yourself were gay. Even if you didn't want to be, and you tried not to be, and you prayed to some god or whoever to change you but you still were. Just imagine that you were young, confused and afraid. Would you simply accept that you weren't normal and that you didn't have the right to a normal life? Would you accept all the bullying and the ostracising? Would you accept the increased risk of mental health problems, suicide or risk of being a target of violence on the basis that you deserved it? Would you accept millions of religious people denouncing you as unnatural and immoral, while telling you that you were not welcome to use their public services or, should you are actually find some happiness in a loving and commited relationship, you weren't allowed to honour that commitment in marriage because you couldn't have children? As though being unable to have a child of your own wasn't hard enough? Would you really accept that you deserved all of that?

@ A.G. Rawlings - regarding my apology, you are welcome. Glad to set the record straight.

I'll also set the record straight about what I said about homosexuality. I didn't say that homosexuality is caused by genes. I said that what causes homosexuality isn't entirely clear, but the theory that it's genetic based is a strong argument. Which is different from stating that "sexual conduct with the same sex is handed down from the genetics." I didn't say that.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make about "different body parts" and "different vital parts." You seem to be saying that if you're born with particular genitalia, it should follow that your sexual orientation should be towards those with different genitalia. If that is the point you are making, I think you're entirely wrong. I think I'm correct in saying that there's more to homosexuality than just sex - there's an emotional aspect to it as well. Can't you just accept that some people, for whatever reason, have sexual orientation towards those of the same gender? If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.

Maybe you could also answer my point about animals mating with different species whilst in the wild, as opposed to your view that they only do this when they are domesticated - what is your source on this? Incidentally, I don't see what any of this has to do with homosexuality, but I'd still be interested to hear your views on the matter.

I'd also ask you why you repeatedly use words like "problem" and "suffer" when you are talking about homosexuality. From what I can see, the main problem gay people have is the attitude others (sometimes including, sadly, their own family and friends) have towards their sexual orientation.

@ Alan Thomas. So an agreement of sorts at last .You believe pairing off Fox with, Griffin, Brons and. Irving a bit of a stretch . So do I .Fox after all is not worthy to lick their boots. No, none wear Doc Martens
Its all very well to slag off people that do not meet your criterion. And how peacful would life be if, they towed the line you so admire. But they do not , Driven by what ever drives them. In the case of Griffin and Brons I know what drives them . Irving I do not . Never having met him
And I guess you have no idea on all three .But insist on your penny worth. Of course you are free to say as you wish .But if the UAF crank wagon turned your life into a scary one .I think maybe you'd change tack PDQ. They did not . That make you unworthy to tie their shoelaces. Unless you know of subsantive reasons rather than media gossip, give it up, or join the crud that is UAF. It seems to me at least you'd find it quite up lifting in a down putting kind of way..

Mr Wooderson it is a shame you have not attempted to answers the questions I asked about mental approach to sexual behaviour 1: Was it a mental or genetic problem. Reply none, 2: Any factual evidence of gay sexuality and genes, handed down like you said? 3: Reply none. 3: Is gay sex part of nature? Reply none. If sex with the same male or female species is nature under your views, then why are we classed as male and female? It makes me wonder why we are born with different parts from opposite sex species; the answer to that is under your views sex is irrelevant in species, as we do not differ sexually, but sadly having same sex with people, we do I’m afraid.

Hello Arcturus, thank you for the comment. Just to explain my comments about Sir Paul’s “dull and unoriginal” thoughts were satirical, in case you didn’t notice, not least because of his Grammar school education, of which I’m indifferent, as I am about private education. The former perhaps slightly against as I failed my 11+ as did some of my friends who then developed academically at a later stage when the school became comprehensive. Eleven is too young to categorise and dismiss someone as not being “academic”. Whilst being in the fortunate position to afford private education for my children I’ve pretty much decided against it (though it is not too late to change my mind) as my priorities are for them to be happy, confident and possess an ability to relate to most people, without feeling superior. Academic success would be a bonus, but people who possess those qualities are the ones that enjoy life and “succeed” if they wish to and not be driven into dull careers as solicitors or accountants almost against their will (not being satirical this time, though I understand that a certain type of person would not find them as boring as me) And an airline pilot is a glorified bus driver! Many excel in private education and less excel in comprehensive education, but I believe the principal reason for this is the parents, not the schools. Private education still produces failure and comprehensive education produces success when the all-round environment dictates. Famous people are probably better sending their children to private schools for obvious reasons, but I understand Paul McCartney’s choice.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.